gBDkI

seem to be accepting an increased need also to ‘measure and foster the progress of societies in
all their dimensions by looking at alternative measures such as the Gross National Happiness
(GNH) index from Bhutan which goes beyond the more established gross national product
(GDP) and other, more economic indicators (OECD, 2007).
This trend is leading to the production of a growing body of studies that demonstrate the
importance of participation in cultural activities and sport to ‘emotional and physical health, to
social capital, cohesion and neighbourhood’ (Young Foundation, The State of Happiness
Project, 2010). The positive impact of participation in cultural activities – no matter what the level
of ‘artistic competence’ of the people involved – on the perception of one’s own psycho-physic
wellbeing has been acknowledged for around 40 years by a scientific measurement scale, the
psychological general wellbeing index. 1 Although governments cannot make people happy or
fulfilled, they can help create the conditions within which wellbeing seems more likely to
increase. Anecdotally, the connection between culture and subjective wellbeing may often seem
obvious, but empirical evidence is much harder to come by. Many ‘quality of life’ impact studies
are regarded as flawed, since they start out from an unsubstantiated, ‘positivist psychology’
position that culture improves lives (Diener, 2009; Matarasso, 1997). To some extent, this trend
seems to recognise the famous Easterlin Paradox that getting richer certainly does not seem to
make people happier (Layard, 2005).
Australia, Canada and New Zealand now have statistical indicators of wellbeing, created from a
range of data from national surveys (though they are careful not to equate individual with
national wellbeing). ‘Happiness’ has been at the heart of Bhutan government policy since the
1980s, with a GNH index and indicators that include ‘sustainable and equitable social and
economic development; conservation of the fragile environment; cultural preservation and
promotion in a developmental sense and good governance’ (Thinley 2007). In many developing
countries, this can be a majority concern, particularly where traditions of participation are central
to culture and identity (e.g. Pacific countries and Bhutan). In the UK and elsewhere, some local
authorities are now setting performance targets for cultural activity in order to justify and account
for public funding.
Participation in arts, craft and celebratory activities is a fundamental human expression of
culture, identity and community and is therefore of clear value per se, though behaviour can
range from passive observation to actively ‘doing it’ (Brook 2011). It is extremely hard in
individual countries – let alone globally – to secure agreement on precise and workable
definitions of when somebody stops being a ‘passive’ audience member and starts to become
an ‘active’ participant. Given that most active participation tends to happen in a dispersed and
uncoordinated way through small, often predominantly social, organizations that are neither
recognised nor funded by governments as sustainable ‘institutions’, formulating coherent and
shared goals is difficult. Nevertheless, this is the target group that this handbook aims to identify
and engage with, all too often forgotten or excluded when ministries of culture draw up policies
and guidelines for disposing of public funds.
In sum, the requirement for a cultural participation survey is primarily driven by a broad-based
social policy perspective, and it concentrates on measuring the extent of people’s engagement
(audience, performer, artist) in a wide range of cultural activities.
1 http://www.fondazionebracco.com/archivio/pdf/The_interaction_between_Culture_health_
and_psychological_wellbeing.pdf
- 9 -